Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Alternative pleading (or pleading in the alternative) is the legal term [1] [2] in the law of the United States for a form of pleading that permits a party in a court action to argue multiple possibilities that may be mutually exclusive by making use of legal fiction.
The plea is clearly bad. By the argument, a principle is pressed to an absurdity, as a bubble is blown until it bursts. Looking at the words merely, there is some foundation for the argument, and following the words only, the conclusion may be arrived at.
Occasionally, such arguments can be confusing to some people, who perceive a self-contradiction or lack of honesty. [1] Generally speaking, this is a case of mistakenly thinking the argument claims both alternatives are true, when in reality it is claiming only that one or the other of them must be. But arguing in the alternative certainly ...
Washington, a defendant must show that but for the ineffective advice, there is a reasonable probability that the plea offer would have been presented to the court, that the court would have accepted its terms, and that the conviction or sentence, or both, under the offer’s terms would have been less severe than under the actual judgment and ...
Argument: Oral argument: Case history; Prior: Alford v. North Carolina, 405 F.2d 340 (4th Cir. 1968), probable jurisdiction noted, 394 U.S. 956 (1969).: Holding; There are no constitutional barriers in place to prevent a judge from accepting a guilty plea from a defendant who wants to plead guilty while still protesting his innocence under extreme duress in a detainee status.
In August 2007, Galin Frye was arrested and charged with driving without a license for the third time, making it a felony in Missouri.The prosecutor in the case sent Frye's attorney two plea offers; one to recommend a three-year sentence with Frye serving only ten days in jail if he pleaded guilty to the felony, and the second to reduce the felony to a misdemeanor, and Frye to serve 90 days in ...
Courts may also have the discretion to decide a case without presentation of oral argument, rendering their judgment entirely based on the arguments set forth in the parties' briefs. [4] David Tatel , judge in the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit , has referred to a "long-established rule" that contentions made for the ...
Several cases have arisen from the modern display of the Confederate flag. Courts applying the "substantial disruption test" under Tinker have held that schools may prohibit students from wearing clothing with Confederate symbols. [16] The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit cited Tinker in the 2013 court case Hardwick v.